RE: Chimp rights

From: Joseph 1 (neohuman@goldenfuture.net)
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 19:27:10 MDT


Oh, Sweet Reason!

Are we living in "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" and nobody told me?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On
Behalf Of Hal Finney
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 12:11 PM
>
> There was a front page article in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday
> about a new organization, The Chimpanzee Collaboratory, which promotes
> chimp (is that word now un-pc?) rights. The article is reprinted at the
> Collaboratory web site, http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/news/index.asp:
>
> > The Chimpanzee Collaboratory, a new, national coalition of research and
> > advocacy groups, has drafted model legislation to allow nonprofit groups
> > to petition courts to act as guardians for any chimpanzee "subjected
> > to the willful use of force or violence upon its body." Members of the
> > coalition have received a total of $1 million over the past two years
> > from the foundation of Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks Inc.,
> > a Seattle software company.

Okay. I've had enough of this nonsense. One wonders how the CEO of a cmopany
(http://www.realnetworks.com/) that seems to technologically forward would
be so ass-backward when it came to biological issues. If money shelled out
for RealPlayer goes to support this kind of crap, give me MicroSoft Media
Player. And I shall be recommending such whenever the subject comes up at
work.

We need to apply our beliefs in the marketplace. It may be a small thing,
but such are the weapons our enemies use. We must as well. Boycott
RealPlayer et al!

> > The advocates of granting legal standing to chimps have gained support
> > from constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School
> > professor. Mr. Tribe argues that the leap isn't as great as it might
> > appear: Courts recognize corporations as juristic, or legal, "persons";
> > that is, they enjoy and are subject to legal rights and duties.
> > ...

Indeed. This is only the thinnest edge of the wedge designed to finally
bring about the radical animal rights agenda as coersive law. Do you really
think they'll stop at chimps? Mark my words; if this gets any traction (and
I doubt it will, but with a $1 million bankroll, it very well might-- I know
I could move mental mountains with such a cache of cash) cow, pig, and
chicken-rights will be coming down the 'pike right behind.

> > Steven Wise, a lecturer at Harvard and author of "Rattling the Cage,"
> > a 2000 manifesto for chimpanzee rights, says the animals are more like
> > our children than our property. It isn't just the 98.7% of DNA the two
> > species have in common.

Why would this be relevant?

> > Like Homo sapiens, chimps have complex social
> > interactions, use tools and teach their offspring distinctive cultural
> > traits.

Termites have complex social interactions, and I don't know of any study
that has demonstrated that chimpanzee socialization is learned. Has anyone
removed baby chimps from their familial units, and seen if they developed
comparable social skills (doubtless not, because that would have been
"cruel")?

> > With sign language, some chimps seem to be able to communicate
> > at about the level of a three- or four-year-old child.
> >
> > "If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a
> > chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person in terms of legal
rights,"
> > Mr. Wise says.

I am continuously amazed to see such fallacies trotted out as sensible
arguments. Just because a chimp can communicate at the level of a
three-year-old, does not make that chimp the moral equivalent of a
three-year-old.

> IMO animal rights are often taken to extremes, but in the case of chimps I
> think they make some good points. If we're going to support animal
rights,

I would question your assumption here, Hal. Why do you assume "we're going
to support animal rights"? I, for one, am in favor of "human rights" taking
precidence over "animal rights".

> it makes sense to be selective and to look at intelligence and brain size.
> Chimpanzees and some of the other apes are close enough to humans that
> they should be the first candidates for legal rights.

I can't believe you're seriously proposing this. They are animals-- they are
incapable of abstract thought, and incapable of moral decision-making.

Rights bear with themslves commensurate responsibilies; animals such as
chimpanzees are incapable of fulfilling those responsibilities. Does a chimp
comprehend the idea of personal property? Does it understand the rule of
law? Until and unless you can prove otherwise, I see no reason to grant
rights with no responsibilities.

Chimps are resources, to be used for humanity's benefit.

> Unfortunately I think we also have to look at the costs involved as well.
> Someday, when we are wealthier as a culture, it may be possible to
> protect the rights of all animals. Now, though, it is not feasible to
> grant rights to food animals or other species which would impose large
> economic costs. Even in the case of chimps, since they cannot give
> informed consent to medical experiments, it means that humans would have
> to be used at an earlier stage, imposing costs on them because of less
> thorough testing.

I don't see it primarily as an issue of cost, although the economic argument
only adds to the rest. It is an issue of law, and the mis-application of law
intended for rational, self-aware beings capable of abstract thought to
animals who are ultimately driven by instinct, no matter how they might ape
(pun intended) human behavior.

Joseph



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:41 MST